Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Lee Bollinger: fearless denouncer of US-designated dictators

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger blasted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, accusing him of exhibiting "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." I have to wonder if Bollinger is actually familiar with the definition of the word or with Iranian politics in general, since 1) Ahmadinejad was in fact democratically elected in 2005 and 2) he's largely a figurehead, since ultimate authority for domestic and foreign policy rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (hint, Lee: that's what "Supreme Leader" means).

As I was watching Bollinger's grandstanding recitation of valid criticisms freely intermingled with Bush administration talking points--a veritable blueprint for the demonization script that's being used to set the stage for war with Iran--I started to wonder if Bollinger reserved his dudgeon only for US-designated enemies. An article today in the Nation pointed me to the (unsurprising) answer, in the form of Bollinger's handling of a similar event with General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan in September 2005. Here are some excerpts I've transcribed from Bollinger's introductory encomium for Musharraf:

Rarely do we have an opportunity such as this to greet a figure of such central and global importance. It is with great gratitude and excitement that I welcome President Musharraf and his wife, Sehbah Musharraf, to Columbia University. ...

We at Columbia are eager to listen. As a community of scholars and as students and faculty who come from everywhere in the world, we take a great scholarly and personal interest in what the President has to say. The development in Pakistan over the past several years, from its economic growth to its fight against extremism and terrorism, are vital issues for all of us. Mr. President, as you share your thoughts and insights you will give our students, the leaders of tomorrow, first-hand knowledge of the world their generation will inherit.

And here's yet more of Bollinger's fawning during that event, from Pakistan's presidential web site itself (via Angry Arab):

"President Musharraf is a leader of global importance and his contribution to Pakistan’s economic turnaround and the international fight against terror remain remarkable - it is rare that we have a leader of his stature at campus," said Lee C Bollinger, the President of Columbia University.

After delivering his introductory speech, Bollinger rushed home to transfer the print of Musharraf's boot from his tongue onto a piece of paper, so he could frame it, hang it above his desk, and admire it lovingly every day.

Bollinger's unwillingness to distinguish an elected president from an actual, flesh and blood dictator, and his eagerness to point out the crimes of official enemies while whitewashing those of official allies, extends to Columbia's World Leaders Forum itself. If you look at their bio link for Musharraf, you'll see this creative rendition of history:

General Pervez Musharraf assumed the office of chief executive of Pakistan in October 1999, having been appointed chief of staff of the army a year earlier. After calling general elections in 2002 and then restoring the constitution, he became president and commander of the armed services of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in October of that year.

They source their biographical text completely to a BBC article about Musharraf. So what does that BBC article actually say?

General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 which was widely condemned and which led to Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth until 2004. ...

In 2002 General Musharraf awarded himself another five years as president, together with the power to dismiss an elected parliament. The handover from military to civilian rule came with parliamentary elections in November 2002, and the appointment of a civilian prime minister.

General Musharraf has retained his military role, reneging on a promise to give up his army post and to become a civilian president.

"Seized power in a bloodless coup"? "Awarded himself another five years as president"? No, no, no, that will never do. Let's see...how about "assumed the office of chief executive of Pakistan" and "became president"? Yeah, that's much better.

It's rare that you get such a crystal clear demonstration of the willingness of intellectuals and institutions to restrict their criticisms to officially-designated enemies. It would be nice if Bollinger's rank hypocrisy were only laughable, but unfortunately it's also very dangerous; his eagerness to embrace the Bush administration's Iran propaganda, and to do so in a high-profile forum, has helped move us one step closer to war.

(To clarify one thing: I'm all for bozos like Ahmadinejad being confronted and dressed down. But I'll take it seriously the day I see someone like Bollinger do it to Henry Kissinger, or Bill Clinton, or Ehud Olmert, or George Bush, or....)

Comments

There could be some possible reasons as to why the Iranian leader is used as a punching bag by some to release their pent up feelings :

Aggravating the nuisance value of what he has to say, discredits his views and thus undermines his position.

The more an image of the "lurking enemy" is reinforced, the more you can promote your role as the "saviour". The "imminent danger" scenario helps bring supporter around a cause to align and identify with.

Obviously this is standard behaviour for states. It is sadly unfortunate that Universities have added to the repression of true discussion and intellectual debate. The BBC, main personal source of information; has spent since 1979 repressing as with all other UK press any debate that includes socialist or commuist opinion.

Yes, yes, yes! This is probably the best commentary I've seen on that disgraceful "introduction". And for the record, no, Bollinger does not "rule". He *sucks*. When he was Prez of Michigan, I dealt with him face-to-face over the issue of U of M gear made in sweatshops. He was patronizing and underhanded then. He's apparently graduated to belligerent and crypto-racist since going to the Ivy League. To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

So, what are we to make of Lee Bollinger's strangely selective notion of what is a dictator and what is not? Apparently, being elected is the hallmark of a dictator, while coming to power by a not-so-bloodless coup (and remaining unelected by being the only name on the ballot thereafter) is the sure sign of a freedom-loving democrat.

Or maybe a "dictator" is anyone not tame to US interests, while an approved "democrat" can be as authoritarian and nasty as a boil on Hitler's anus as long as he's tame.

But I guess we're supposed to be blindsided by all of Bollinger's grand rhetoric into ignoring the inconvenient, yet strangely salient facts.